ICSA_2010.

qxd 07-06-2010 15:29 Pagina 1

Editor

Although Architecture and Structural Engineering have both had their own historical
Paulo
development, their interaction has led to many fascinating and delightful structures over time.
To bring this interaction to a higher level, there is the need to stimulate the inventive and
Cruz
creative design of architectural structures and to persuade architects and structural engineers to
work together in this process, exploiting constructive principles and aesthetic and static values.

Structures and Architecture presents over 250 selected contributions and addresses all major

AND
aspects of structures and architecture, including comprehension of complex forms, computer
and experimental methods, concrete and masonry structures, emerging technologies, glass
structures, innovative architectural and structural design, lightweight and membrane structures,

ARCHITECTURE
STRUCTURES
special structures, steel and composite structures, the borderline between architecture and
structural engineering, the tectonic of new solutions, the use of new materials, timber structures,
the history of the relationship between architects and structural engineers, among others.

This book of abstracts and the searchable CD-ROM with full papers contain the contributions
presented at the 1st International Conference on Structures and Architecture (ICSA2010).
This event was organized by the School of Architecture of the University of Minho, Guimarães,
Portugal (July 2010), to promote the synergy between both disciplines.

The contributions on creative and scientific aspects in the conception and construction of
structures, on advanced technologies and on complex architectural and structural applications
represent a fine blend of scientific, technical and practical novelties in both fields.

This set is intended for both researchers and practitioners, including architects, structural and
construction engineers, builders and building consultants, constructors, material suppliers,
product manufacturers and other experts and professionals involved in the design and
realization of architectural, structural and infrastructural projects.

STRUCTURES
AND
ARCHITECTURE
Editor

Paulo J.S. Cruz

an informa business
 STRUCTURES AND ARCHITECTURE

ICSA.indb i 6/1/2010 9:10:32 PM

ICSA.indb ii 6/1/2010 9:10:33 PM
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURES AND
ARCHITECTURE, ICSA 2010, GUIMARÃES, PORTUGAL, 21–23 JULY 2010

Structures and Architecture

Editor
Paulo J.S. Cruz
School of Architecture, University of Minho, Portugal

ICSA.indb iii 6/1/2010 9:10:33 PM

CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
© 2010 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Version Date: 20140602

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4398-6297-1 (eBook - PDF)

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been
made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the
validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the
copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to
publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let
us know so we may rectify in any future reprint.

Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or
utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including pho-
tocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permis-
sion from the publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http://
www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA
01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of
users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has
been arranged.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the CRC Press Web site at
http://www.crcpress.com
 Structures and Architecture – Cruz (Ed.)
© 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-49249-2

Table of contents

Preface xxi
Conference organization xxiii
Conference sponsors (as of April 20, 2010) xxvii

Keynote lectures
Architectural values, altruism and innovation in a changing world 3
I. Ritchie
Treatment of the form in structural engineering 7
J. Martínez-Calzón
An ontology of structured space 11
B.N. Sandaker
The architecture of special structures 15
A.J. Reis
Innovative timber constructions 19
Y. Weinand
The changing relationship between architects and structural engineers 21
A.J. Macdonald
Concrete immaterial structures 23
A. Tavares
New trends on membrane and shell structures—Examples of bat-sail
and cushion-belt technologies 25
R. Off

Technical contributions
“Tectonics” in architecture: Between aesthetics and ethics
The morphogenesis of shell structures: A conceptual, computational
and constructional challenge 31
M.A. Chiorino & M. Sassone
Topology optimization in architecture may it be a design tool? 33
L. Frattari, G. Leoni, R. Vadori & R. D’Aria
On the optimal design of shape resistant structures 35
L. Consolini, G.D. Puppa & S. Lenci
Structural optimization vs. shape design 37
P. Trovalusci & A. Tinelli

ICSA.indb v 6/1/2010 9:10:33 PM

 Geometrical indeterminacy as a way to structural and architectural performance 39
C. Padoa-Schioppa & S. Pollak
The tectonic of modern materials: Alternatives from Le Corbusier’s work 41
V. Riso
The methods and spatial sensitivity of Italian architects and engineers in the fifties
and sixties 43
A. Muntoni
The P.L. Nervi structural route: From intuition to computation through geometry 45
F. Romeo
Materials, forms and abstract methods in the work of Riccardo Morandi 47
L. Sampò
The structural control of architecture in two works of Giuseppe Damiani Almeyda 49
C. Tocci
Nonlinearity in architecture versus science: Borrowing the lexicon of complexity
or exploiting its powerfulness? 51
G. Rega & V. Settimi
Towards an ethic of construction: The structural conception and the influence
of mathematical language in architectural design 53
P. Trovalusci & R. Panei
Structural design in the architectural design process: Toyo Ito 55
C. Gamboni
Stone-masonry new constructions: Science and history in the service
of beauty and environment 57
G. Salerno, G. Formica, S. Gabriele & V. Varano
An eco-design-oriented multidisciplinary approach in industrial design 61
L. Frattari, R. Vadori & R. D’Aria

Transparent structural materials—glass and plastic

Structural transparency 65
J.-D. Wörner, J. Stahl & C. Eckhardt
Bent architectural glasses: Production, properties, structural behaviour 67
J. Schneider & S. Schula
Detailing with structural glass and steel 69
J.W. Kooymans
Shear behaviour of point fixed glass panels used for building stabilization 71
D. Mocibob, M. Crisinel & J.P. Lebet
Concept, testing and realisation of transparent and sustainable glass double layer grids 73
B. Weller, S. Reich & J. Ebert
Elastic strain energy and failure behaviour of glass elements 75
F.P. Bos
Transparent glass-Vierendeel roof 77
B. Weller, S. Reich & J. Ebert
Fly bubble, fly 79
B. Franken

vi

ICSA.indb vi 6/1/2010 9:10:33 PM

 Plastic materials in façade applications 81
T. Ries
Detailing of structural elements with thermoplastics 83
C. Eckhardt & J. Stahl
Plexiglas spatial experiment—90 years of the Bauhaus 85
T. Boettger
Innovations in PMMA design 87
J. Stahl & C. Eckhardt
Damages in glass/plastic- and hybrid structures and respective conclusions 89
J.-D. Wörner
SentryGlas®—High-performance laminated glass for structural efficient glazing 91
I. Stelzer
Scaling up SentryGlas-laminated reinforced glass beams 93
P.C. Louter, J. Belis & F.A. Veer
Hybrid structural elements made of glass and polycarbonate 95
B. Weller & K. Härth
Adhesively bonded hybrid steel-glass beams 97
M. Netusil & M. Eliasova
Development of a super slim façade system for InHolland Polytechnic, Delft 99
M. Eekhout & P. van de Rotten

Timber construction
Better than steel? The use of timber for large and tall buildings from ancient times
until the present 103
R. Langenbach
Pushing the limits of platform frame wood construction 105
C. Ni, M. Popovski & E. Karacabeyli
Development of fireproof glued-laminated timber for use in medium-rise buildings
in Japan 107
T. Harada, D. Kamikawa, K. Miyamoto, T. Ohuchi, M. Miyabayashi,
K. Ando & N. Hattori
Design guidelines for an 8-storey hybrid wood-concrete multi-family building 109
S. Gagnon, W. Munoz, M. Mohammad & K.D. Below
A case study of a 6-storey hybrid wood-concrete office building in Québec, Canada 111
S. Gagnon & S. Rivest
Vertical relative displacements in a medium-rise CLT-building 113
E. Serrano, B. Enquist & J. Vessby
A study of cross-lamination of a multi-component liquid-retaining
timber structure 115
N.J. Savage, A. Kermani & H. Zhang
Verification processes for cross laminated timber in the frame of EN 1995 117
R.A. Joebstl
On the architectural qualities of cross laminated timber 119
A.K. Bejder, P.H. Kirkegaard & A.M. Fisker

vii

ICSA.indb vii 6/1/2010 9:10:33 PM

 Vibration properties of cross laminated timber floors 121
N. Labonnote & K.A. Malo
Failure studies carried out in Europe and a proposal for a standardized
failure template 123
T. Toratti
Moisture-induced stresses in timber-concrete composite structures 125
M. Fragiacomo & J. Schänzlin
Stress analysis of timber structures under variable humidity conditions by using
a multi-Fickian moisture transfer model 127
S. Fortino, T. Toratti & A.L. Mendicino
Robustness evaluation of timber structures—Results from EU COST
Action E55:WG3 129
P.H. Kirkegaard, J.D. Sørensen, D. Čizmar & P. Dietsch
Robustness analysis of big span glulam truss structure 131
V. Rajčić, D. Čizmar, P.H. Kirkegaard & J.D. Sørensen

Steel structures
The steel construction of XIXth century: An exceptional case study 135
C.B. Cestari & S. Invernizzi
Steel interventions in preexistent buildings: Case studies on interfaces 137
C.A. Moraes & L.F.L. Ribeiro
Evolution of Spanish industrialized steel technologies for school buildings 139
O. Pons
Steel detailing and collaboration: A global perspective 141
K. Simonen
Steel tubular structures and connections in architecture of China—New application
and technologies 143
W. Wang
Tubular structure for the “nearly ninety” dance scenography 145
J. Martínez-Calzón & B.M. Encinas Maldonado
Masts and towers 147
U. Støttrup-Andersen & M.G. Nielsen
Transformable architectural structures 149
N.F. Afshar & M. Hosseyni-Amir
Behaviour of steel shear wall systems with cut-outs and stiffeners 151
A. Maleki, T. Donchev, H. Hadavinia & A. Cheah
Improved design model for thin-walled cold-formed purlins continuously connected
to sandwich panel roofing 153
M. Georgescu & V. Ungureanu
Optimizing of human induced vibration performance of lightweight
steel floors 155
W. Rack & J. Lange
Carrasco International Airport. Architects, engineers and steel structure 157
H.M. Ruffo & J. Gomez

viii

ICSA.indb viii 6/1/2010 9:10:34 PM

 Design of cold-formed steel curved panels 159
P. Casariego, M. Casafont, M. Ferrer & F. Marimón
Tubular structures for the Seville April Fair. A complex geometry exercise 161
M.T. Rodríguez-León, F. Escrig-Pallarés & J. Sánchez-Sánchez
Stability of single layered grid shells with various connectors 163
K.J. Hwang & J. Knippers
Update of steel connection data bank 165
M. Komuro, N. Kishi & W.F. Chen
Case study: The supporting steel structure of the ice rink—city
of Tg. Mureş, Romania 167
Zs. Nagy, C. Câmpian, M. Cristuţiu & I. Benke
Reliability assessment of industrial heritage structures and application
to a light-weight steel roof 169
M. Sykora, M. Holicky, K. Jung, J. Markova, K. Kvaal & T.K. Thiis
Robustness performance of seismic resistant building frames under abnormal loads 171
F. Dinu, D. Dubina & A. Ciutina
Elasto-plastic FE analysis on hysteretic moment-rotation behavior
of top- and seat-angle connections 173
N. Kishi, M. Komuro & W.F. Chen
Mechanical behavior of a ferritic stainless steel under simple and complex
loading paths 175
B. Rossi & J.-P. Jaspart
Analysis of some selected types of joints in lattice structures 177
V. Kvočák, P. Beke & N. Hočóvá

Complex forms and form-finding

Process and form 181
M.G. Fineout, R. Stephens & M. Bacellar
Form and structure in engineering and visual arts 183
J.M. Songel
Form and structure, the teamwork between Arne Jacobsen and M. Folmer Andersen 185
Y.O. Sanz
Free-form design: From facetted to smooth double-curvature envelopes 187
N. Baldassini & J. Raynaud
Origami—geometry of folded plate structures 189
H. Buri & Y. Weinand
Engineering free form: Spanish Pavilion for the Expo 2010 in Shanghai 191
J. Martínez-Calzón & C. Castañón-Jiménez
Evolutionary form-finding—conception of effective structures by means
of interactive patterns 193
J. Stratil
Optimization of structural form using a genetic algorithm to search associative
parametric geometry 195
P. von Buelow, A. Falk & M. Turrin

ix

ICSA.indb ix 6/1/2010 9:10:34 PM

 From free-form structures to natural lighting—how engineering innovation pushes
the limits of architecture 197
V. Schmid
An iterative surface model for timber construction 199
G. Gouaty, I. Stotz, Y. Weinand & E. Tosan
Canadian museum for human rights, Winnipeg 201
B.D. Charnish & N. Erakovic
Followings natural patterns to unite architecture and structure 203
P. Shirazpur, G. Yunesi & S. Yaghmaeian

Innovative architectural and structural design

Architectural structural schemes 207
N. Baldassini
Cable stayed cathedral ceiling 209
T. Sass
Designing light columns: A quantitative tool 211
T. Vilquin
Direct and reverse shaping structures according to the flow of forces 213
R. Tarczewsk & W. Bober
Dual structures towards kinetic adaptability for earthquake resistance 215
T.L. Sophocleous & M.C. Phocas
Eladio Dieste; ‘resistance through form’ 217
R. Pedreschi & D. Theodossopoulos
Engineering stadia roof forms 219
F. McCormick
Heinz Isler’s shells—a lasting legacy 221
J.C. Chilton
Myron Goldsmith: The development of the diagonally braced tube 223
M.J. Neveu & E.P. Saliklis
Narrative structures 225
E. Castro e Costa
Structural design process of the doubly curved Heysel canopy 227
K. Verbeeck & L. Ney
Structural design procedures to support the development of innovative
architectural structures 229
S.G. Reid
Structural robustness as an innovative design concept 231
M. Sykora & M. Holicky
On deployable reciprocal frames: From the mathematical description
to the architectural applications 233
M. Sassone & D. Parigi
Early Christian cemetery complex Sopianae/Pécs Hungary 235
T. Molnár & B. Bachmann

ICSA.indb x 6/1/2010 9:10:34 PM

 Filigree constructions vs solid constructions. The relationship between structure
and architecture in the contemporary age 237
R. Corrao & L. Pastre
Structural design of the Rogier conic shell canopy 239
K. Verbeeck & L. Ney

Interdisciplinary work and educating architects and structural engineers

Teaching structures to architecture students: Examples from bridge design 243
A. Berk & A.I. Unay
Educating structural engineers and architects together at the University
of Sheffield—10 years on 245
J.B. Davison, A. Tyas, O. Popovic-Larsen & T. Carter
A case study on collaboration within multidisciplinary teamwork 247
A.S. Dederichs, J. Karlshøj & K.D. Hertz
Let’s (re)start from the beginning: Structures and architecture—back to school 249
R. Rapaport & R. Frances
Breaking stuff: A no frills approach to haptic learning in structures classes 251
K. Dong & T. Leslie
Interactive “self-learning” cost estimation assistant for the design
of “form-active” structures 253
R. Wehdorn-Roithmayr & N. Kim
Collaborative teaching to create integrated building envelopes 255
K. Dong & J. Doerfler
Get the form right! Teaching structural design to architects 257
R.J. Dermody
An equilibrium approach on a structural scale to structural design 259
D. Zastavni
The interdisciplinary design studio: Understanding collaboration 261
K. Dong & J. Doerfler
Updating the architectural and engineering curricula for the integrated age 263
P. Kassabian & A. Watson
Special projects in architectural structures 265
R.E. Shaeffer

Tall buildings
Structures and architecture in tall buildings 269
K.S. Moon
Torre Reforma—an innovative tower design in Mexico City 271
D.N. Grant, R. Pittella, M. Tavolaro & I. Kourakis
Zerozero tower for the new Telefónica headquarters in Barcelona 273
J. Martínez-Calzón & L. Ceriani
Optimum design of steel diagrid structures for tall buildings 275
K.S. Moon

xi

ICSA.indb xi 6/1/2010 9:10:34 PM

 Residential and tertiary complex “La Pallaresa” in Barcelona 277
J. Martínez-Calzón & B. Ballesteros

Tectonics
Tectonic structures: Platforms and clouds 281
J.J. Ferrer Forés
Performative Tectonics 283
M.K. Holst, P.H. Kirkegaard & M. Mullins
Tectonic theory and practice: Interiority in the future prefab home 285
M. Frier, A.M. Fisker & P.H. Kirkegaard
On detailing in contemporary architecture—a discussion of architectural quality 287
C. Kristensen & P.H. Kirkegaard
Nature and structural design in architecture 289
A. Davico & P. Mendonça
The concept of continuity and the tectonics of non standard architecture 291
C. Silvestri, S. Bullo & R. Di Marco

Timber structures
Structural timber fabric: Textile principles on building scale 295
M. Hudert & Y. Weinand
Improving the system of floor slabs of Tji beams with the incorporation
of a decorative ceiling finish 297
M.C. Fernández-Cabo
Case study of a large lattice truss timber structure of an industrial building 299
C. Molins
The use of structural timber in designing sustainable rainscreen façades 301
K. Vasilikou
Structural assessment and reinforcement of ancient timber trusses 303
M. Esteban, F. Arriaga, G. Íñiguez & I. Bobadilla
Interdisciplinary form finding in the development of a sustainable
emergency shelter 305
R.M. Arens & E.P. Saliklis
New joint design for the improvement of steel rods glued-in timber using
an adhesive bulb 307
J. Estévez, D. Otero, E. Martín & J.A. Vázquez
Architectural and structural comparisment of South American
and European timber frame structures 309
V. Rodríguez, D. Čizmar & V. Rajčić
Constantino de Vasconcelos and quincha architecture in Spanish Colonial Peru 311
H. Rodríguez-Camilloni
Modelling of multi layer beam with inter-layer slips 313
J. Natterer & Y. Weinand
Numerical analysis of metal joints glued in timber pieces 315
E. Martín, J. Estévez, D. Otero & J.A. Vázquez

xii

ICSA.indb xii 6/1/2010 9:10:34 PM

 Assessment of seismic behavior of traditional timber frame Ottoman houses:
Frame tests 317
Y.D. Aktaş Erdem, U. Akyüz, B. Erdil, A. Türer & N. Şahin Güçhan

Bridges
Designing bridges: Structure, architectural concept and aesthetics 321
A. Adão da Fonseca
How to win at bridge 323
C.M. Bednarski
Bridges—Architecture or just aesthetics? 325
J. Tervaoja
To be or to do; a study of architects’ and engineers’ contributions to bridge design 327
B. Manum & B.N. Sandaker
Four significant factors in evolution of bridge engineering 329
N. Hu & G.L. Dai
Challenges of bridge design and construction in urban areas 331
V.A. Seliverstov & O.I. Chemerinsky
Design evolution of footbridges and access bridge on the jetties of a LNG Terminal 333
J.D. Gómez, N. Pastor & A. Arnedo
The relation between architectural elements and structural system in the rehabilitation
of the old bridges in Timisoara 335
L.L. Rosiu & S.M. Bica
Aerodynamic stability of large suspension bridge using cable frames 337
T. Yoshimura & M. Kawahara
Asymmetric network arch bridges 339
B. Zwingmann, S. Marx & F. Schanack
Strengthening of pre-stressed concrete main girder bridge by means of FRP plates 341
A.Q. Melhem
Oscar Niemeyer’s bridge in Brasília 343
R.P. da Fonseca & J.M. Morales Sánchez

Membranes and tensile structures

‘Membranes’ in light weight and membrane structures 347
S. Patil & S. Lele
Low-span lightweight membranes in housing—environmental and structural potentialities 349
P. Mendonça
Redefinition of architecture by means of pneumatic principles 351
M. Asefi & S. Marzban
Natrix, barrier of silence 353
A.P.H.W. Habraken
‘Cables’ in light weight and membrane structures 355
S. Patil & S. Lele
Tensile structures: Design process 357
E.F. Nunes & J.B.M. Sousa Júnior

xiii

ICSA.indb xiii 6/1/2010 9:10:34 PM

 Affordable houses and sustainable buildings
Design strategies for structure as in integrating framework 361
H. Giles
Affordable houses: Architectural concepts of a modular steel residential house 363
V. Murtinho, A. Correia, H. Ferreira, L. Simões da Silva, H. Gervásio, C. Rebelo,
A. Santiago, P. Santos, D. Mateus & C. Rigueiro
Affordable houses: Functional, structural and technological performance 365
P. Santos, D. Mateus, L. Simões da Silva, C. Rebelo, H. Gervásio, A. Correia,
H. Ferreira, A. Santiago, V. Murtinho & C. Rigueiro
Innovative sustainable steel framing based affordable house solution
for continental seismic areas 367
D. Dubina, V. Ungureanu, A. Ciutina, M. Mutiu & D. Grecea
Barriers to the implementation of sustainable structural materials
in green buildings 369
C.T. Griffin, C. Knowles, C. Theodoropoulos & J.H. Allen
Low-cost sustainable construction technology for autonomous buildings 371
J. Goggins & D. Gavigan
Comparing the embodied energy of structural systems in buildings 373
C.T. Griffin, B. Reed & S. Hsu

Hybrid and composite structures

Tall hybrid RC framed buildings with massive timber floor plates 377
A. Asiz & I. Smith
Architecturally exposed hybrid wood-steel and wood-concrete structures 379
P.A. Fast & J. Stahl
The behaviour of steel and steel concrete composite joints 383
D. Dan, V. Stoian, T. Nagy-György, A. Fabian, C. Daescu,
C. Florut & I. Demeter
Convergent design methodology for bio-science labs: Architectonic and performative
structural considerations using the Geilinger composite column solution 385
M. Echard & D. Tonis
Analysis and design of hybrid frame pier for high-speed railway 387
N. Hu & G.L. Dai
Proposals for determination of the effective moment of inertia of composite slabs 389
R.S. Costa, F.C. Rodrigues & A.C.C. Lavall

Timber and masonry structures

Simple efficient architecture 393
J.M. Cabrero, E. Bayo & P. Haller
Towards a new generation of software: A case study for timber building structures 395
J.L. Fernández-Cabo, J. Ávila-Nieto & V. Kudlac
Tabique construction in Alto Tâmega 397
A. Cepeda, A. Murta, J. Lousada, J. Vieira, J. Pinto, L. Fernandes, P. Tavares,
P. Silva & H. Varum

xiv

ICSA.indb xiv 6/1/2010 9:10:34 PM

 Structure and architectural project: Two examples with masonry walls 399
M. Freire, J.M. Rosales & G. Crecente
Retrofit of the masonry minaret of historical mosque with FRP:
A case study 401
A.M. Turk & C. Cosgun
Restoration of the refectory vault. Monasterio de Monfero. A Coruña, Spain 403
P. Sabín Díaz, E.M. Blanco Lorenzo, J.B. Pérez Valcárcel & M. Muñoz Vidal

Emerging technologies
Translucent buildings’ silhouettes made of wire cloth—development
of an adjusted dynamic wind load concept 407
F. Kemper, M. Feldmann & J. Kuck
Principles of conceptual design for new seismic protection systems 409
M. Mezzi
The emergence of kinetic intelligent architecture in 21st century 411
H. Ghamari & M. Asefi
Aseismic dissipating devices and unconventional shapes in seismic areas 413
M. Mezzi & A. Dusi
Sustainable and earthquake resistant structural systems 415
E. Coskun, G. Kiymaz & E. Seckin

Special structures
Investigation the optimum location of cable-supports for communication towers 419
O. Salem
The Cathedral Museum of Pécs 421
B. Bachmann
Designing a bridge, airport and stadium 423
J. Radić, A. Kindij & B. Kincl
Structural design of the International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory 425
H. Marques, P. Pimenta & A. Campos e Matos
Structure form of pretension string rail structure and application prospect 427
F.-Y. Li, D.-J. Liu, J.-B. Han & J.-L. Wang
Double-layer tensegrity grids for architectural applications: In search
of new morphologies 429
K.A. Liapi & J. Kim

Concrete structures
Historical use of concrete and innovation in architecture 433
M. Bostenaru Dan
Reinforced concrete structures. Sustainable architecture? 435
M. Molina Huelva
Spatial concrete plate structures—a fusion of architecture and structural engineering 437
A. Gianoli & M. Kunze

xv

ICSA.indb xv 6/1/2010 9:10:34 PM

 Conservation requirements for concrete heritage. The case study of the buildings
of the Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian in Lisbon 439
J. Valença & E. Júlio
Preservation of historical concrete structures 441
M. Bostenaru Dan
Possibility for strength improvement of concrete with delayed ettringite formation 443
S. Lubej, A. Ivanič & M. Radosavljević
New solutions for constructing double-curved concrete shell structures 445
M. Johnson, P. Kassabian, C. Genter, M. Love, T. Love & J. Lamere
Technological evolution of concrete: From ancient times to ultra
high-performance concrete 447
A. Camões & R.M. Ferreira
Lightweight ferro cement open web joists as low cost roofing element 449
S.F. Ahmad
Conservation of suburban concrete buildings 451
J. Lahdensivu, S. Varjonen & J. Matilla
Poor quality concrete: A major challenge in the building construction industry
in Nigeria 453
R.O. Oduola
Hybrid composite rods for concrete reinforcement 455
C. Gonilho-Pereira, S. Jalali, R. Fangueiro, M. Araújo & P. Pina Marques
Accounting for the construction phase in the coordination between architectural
and structural design 457
M. Branco, M.R. Arruda & L. Murteira
New Museum of contemporary art: Challenges and design 459
D. Meštrović & T. Landeka
Structural design of the concrete shell for ‘Facelift Umicore’ 461
J. Vander Beken, F. Ghyssaert & L. Ney
Reducing the embodied energy and embodied carbon of reinforced concrete
structures in Ireland 463
J. Goggins
Directionally oriented fibrous structures for lightweight concrete
elements reinforcement 465
P. Pina Marques, R. Fangueiro & C. Gonilho-Pereira
Utilization of triaxial stress fields in plastic shear solutions for confined RC members 467
L.C. Hoang & U.G. Jensen

Computer and digital design tools

Computational design tools for integrated design 471
M.K. Holst & P.H. Kirkegaard
Use of force density method by analytical procedures in funicular analysis 473
C. Cercadillo García & J.L. Fernández-Cabo
Gathering the real time state of construction for simulation 475
K. Ailland & H.-J. Bargstädt

xvi

ICSA.indb xvi 6/1/2010 9:10:34 PM

 Climate, environment and frost damage of architectural heritage 477
S. Kyllingstad, T.K. Thiis, A. Flø, J. Potac & M. Sykora
Artificial Intelligence techniques applied to reinforced concrete 479
J.L. Pérez, J. Eiras, F. Martínez-Abella & J.R. Rabuñal
Behaviour of LNG concrete tank at cryogenic temperature 483
L. Dahmani
A computational framework for synthesising optimum complex
structural patterns 485
D.J. Gunaratnam & M. Rosenman
Building on the information model: Enhancing architectural structures
education with BIM 487
D.J. Oakley
Optimization as a design tool for shell structures 489
S. Arnout, G. Lombaert & G. De Roeck
Representation + fabrication: Connecting descriptions and artifacts
in the digital age 491
T. Al-Haddad, A. Cavieres, R. Gentry, M. Carpo, J. Cho, L. Wagner &
A. Zaitsev
Checking of building structures 493
J.P. Valcárcel & M. Muñoz Vidal

Masonry structures
Fracture test of a Gothic ribbed vault 497
J.C. Palacios, R. Martín, J.I. Hernando, D. Sanz, M.A. Alonso & A. Aznar
Nonlinear seismic assessment of architectural heritage: A study of the Árchez tower 499
P. Pineda & A. Sáez
The structural behavior and the state of stress in the elements of Cathedral
of Sé in São Paulo 501
K. Niccoli Ramirez & H. Lindenberg Neto
A dynamic analysis of the Ruins of St. Paul’s, Macau 503
C.C. Lam, V.P. Iu & K.P. Kou
Advantages of using raw materials in structural solutions 505
A. Murta, C. Teixeira, I. Bentes, J. Pinto & H. Varum
Damage evaluation for condition assessment of historic masonry structures
by NDE and monitoring 507
Y.D. Aktaş Erdem & A. Türer

The borderline between architecture and structural engineering

Architect and structural engineer communicating in multi-disciplinary creativity 511
L. Luyten
Architectural anatomy 513
J. Pérez-Herreras
Four study cases on skins and structures 515
H. Fallon

xvii

ICSA.indb xvii 6/1/2010 9:10:34 PM

 Groundwork, structure, design: The integrated education of architects and engineers 517
M. Dunn
Load path method in the interpretation of dome behaviour 519
F. Palmisano & A. Totaro
Tensile structures—interdisciplinary teamwork as a win-win situation 521
E. Amitay & I. González Quelle
The structure as an identity 523
R. Barelkowski
Project management: Integrating architecture and structural engineering
design processes 525
N.R. Andrade, A.L. Aquere & R.M. Lima
The work of Eduardo Torroja: Research for improving the quality
of construction technology 527
J. Antuña
Structural skins in contemporary architecture 529
A. Bernabeu Larena & J. Bernabeu Larena
Qualitative structural model for pre-evaluation of structures behavior 531
M.S. Oliveira & A.M.S. Freitas
Beware, she’s here! 533
T. Andrade Santos

New materials
FRP light poles: A combination of structural integrity and architectural elegancy 537
S. Salib
Sintered glass with increased contents of secondary raw materials 539
T. Melichar & J. Bydžovský
FRP composites for seismic retrofitting of RC wall panels with cut-out openings 541
I. Demeter, T. Nagy-György, V. Stoian, C. Dăescu & D. Dan
Self-diagnosing braided composite rod 543
E. Zdraveva, R. Fangueiro, C. Gonilho-Pereira, A. Ferreira & S. Lanceros-Mendez
FRP: Towards harmony between structural and architectural requirements
for rehabilitation systems 545
S. Salib
Bond improvement in cement mortars reinforced with carbon-fibre composite strands 547
A. Ivanič, S. Lubej & M. Radosavljević

The history of the relationship between architects and structural engineers

From separate to combine—the ever-changing borderline between architectural art
and structural art 551
N. Hu & G.L. Dai
The history of the relationship between architects and structural engineers 553
M.R. Taghavi
Collaboration and rivalry at Expo 58. Authorship in the building industries’ landmarks 555
R. Devos & S. Van de Voorde

xviii

ICSA.indb xviii 6/1/2010 9:10:34 PM

 Félix Candela (1910–1997): Architect and structural 557
P. Cassinello
The changing concept of truss design caused by the influence of science 559
M. Rinke & T. Kotnik
Past and present characteristics of Vierendeel’s poutre à arcades 563
K. Verswijver & R. De Meyer

Experimental and numerical analysis

Prediction of debris hazardous zone for different architectural and structural forms 567
S.C. Fan & Q.J. Yu
Experimental results on composite steel-concrete structural shear walls
with steel encased profiles 569
D. Dan, V. Stoian & A. Fabian
Experimental investigation of panel zone in steel beam-to-column joint
at elevated temperature 571
M. Strejček & F. Wald
Experimental analysis on T-shaped metallic profile for timber connection 573
A. Polastri, M. Moretton, R. Tomasi, M. Piazza & A. Angeli
AVI as a mechanical tool for studying dynamic and static beam structures 575
F. Demoures, T.S. Ratiu, Y. Weinand & J. Nembrini
Management of bridges with historical value 577
H. Isohata
The influence of size in predicting the elastic modulus of Populus x euramericana
timber using vibration techniques 579
M. Casado, L. Acuña, D. Vecilla, E. Relea, A. Basterra, G. Ramón & G. López

Miscellaneous
The “diagrid system”: A new aesthetic and structural concept for an outstanding
bridge on the access to the new T4 terminal at Barajas Airport (Madrid) 583
F. Millanes, D. Martinez, P. Solera, F. Domouso, E. Rodriguez & L. Fernandez-Ordonez
Two spectacular facades with corrugated glass in Porto and Antwerp and an
all glass cube in Haarlem (NL) 585
R. Nijsse

Author index 587

xix

ICSA.indb xix 6/1/2010 9:10:34 PM

ICSA.indb xx 6/1/2010 9:10:35 PM
 Structures and Architecture – Cruz (Ed.)
© 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-49249-2

Preface

Although Architecture and Structural Engineering have both had their own historical development,
their interaction has led to the many fascinating and delightful existing structures nowadays.
However, there is still the need to stimulate the creative and original design of architectural
structures and to persuade architects and structural engineers to further collaborate in this
process and to take advantage of constructive principles and aesthetic and static values jointly.
Therefore, it was considered appropriate to bring together all of the very best work that
has been carried out in the field of structures and architecture during the First International
Conference on Structures and Architecture (ICSA2010), held in Guimarães, Portugal, July,
21–23, 2010.
Structures and Architecture contains the lectures and papers presented at ICSA2010.
It consists of a book of abstracts and a CD-ROM containing the full texts of the lectures
and papers presented at ICSA2010, including the 8 keynote lectures and 248 selected contri-
butions from more than 40 countries.
ICSA2010 covered all major aspects of structures and architecture, including comprehen-
sion of complex forms, computer and experimental methods, concrete and masonry struc-
tures, emerging technologies, glass structures, innovative architectural and structural design,
lightweight and membrane structures, special structures, steel and composite structures, the
borderline between architecture and structural engineering, the history of the relationship
between architects and structural engineers, the tectonic of new solutions, the use of new
materials and timber structures, among others.
The interest of the international community in all these fields has been confirmed by the
high response to the call of papers. In fact, more than 400 abstracts were received at the
Conference Secretariat. About 60% of them were selected for final publication as full-papers
and presentation at the Conference within 3 plenary sessions and 45 technical sessions.
This set of book and CD-ROM is intended for a global readership of researchers and prac-
titioners, including architects, structural and construction engineers, builders and building con-
sultants, constructors, material suppliers and product manufacturers, and other professionals
involved in the design and realization of architectural, structural and infrastructural projects.
This publication has its genesis in the 1st International Conference on Structures and
Architecture Conference (ICSA2010), organized by the University of Minho, Guimarães,
Portugal, in July 2010, which aims at promoting the synergy of both areas. The contribu-
tions on creative and scientific aspects in the conception and construction of structures, on
advanced technologies and on complex architectural and structural applications represent a
fine blend of scientific, technical and practical novelties in both engineering fields.
On behalf of ICSA2010, the chair of the Conference would like to take this opportunity
to express his most sincere gratitude to the authors, organizers of mini-symposia and special-
seminar to the participants for their contributions, to the members of the Conference Scien-
tific Committee for their work and commitment and to the members of the Local Organizing
Committee for the time and effort they have dedicated to make ICSA2010 a successful event.
Last, but not least, our sincere thanks to all the sponsors of ICSA2010, for their willingness
to embrace this event from its very beginning.

Paulo J.S. Cruz

Chair, ICSA2010
Guimarães, April 2010

xxi

ICSA.indb xxi 6/1/2010 9:10:35 PM

ICSA.indb xxii 6/1/2010 9:10:35 PM
 Structures and Architecture – Cruz (Ed.)
© 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-49249-2

Conference organization

CONFERENCE CHAIR

Paulo J.S. Cruz, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal

CONFERENCE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

Erik Aasheim, Norwegian Institute of Wood Technology, Norway

António Adão da Fonseca, FEUP – Faculty of Engineering of University of Porto, Portugal
Francisco Arriaga Martitegui, Technical University of Madrid, Spain
Jaume Avellaneda, Technical University of Catalonia, Spain
Ivan Balaz, Slovak University of Technology, Slovakia
Pedro Bandeira, University of Minho, Portugal
Renato Bastos, University of Minho, Portugal
Darko Beg, University of Ljubliana, Slovenia
Jan Belis, Ghent University, Belgium
Brian Bell, Network Rail, UK
Fabrice Bernard, INSA – Rennes, France
Clara Bertolini Cestari, Politecnico di Torino, Italy
Freek Bos, Ghent University, Belgium
Mikael W. Braestrup, Ramboll, Denmark
Eugen Brüehwiler, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland
Pedro C.G.S. Vellasco, UERJ, Brazil
Jose Calavera Ruiz, INTEMAC, Spain
Aires Camões, University of Minho, Portugal
Michiel Cohen, Cepezed architects, Netherlands
Xiao Congzhen, China Academy of Building Research, China
Philip Cox, Cox Architects & Planners, Australia
Michel Crisinel, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland
Paulo Cruz, University of Minho, Portugal
Mauro Augusto Demarzo, State University of Campinas, Brazil
Dan Dubina, University of Timisoara, Romania
Christopher J. Earls, Cornell University, USA
Vahik Enjily, Enjily International Ltd, UK
Javier Estevez Cimadevila, Universidad de la Coruña, Spain
Rui Miguel Ferreira, University of Minho, Portugal
Kenneth Frampton, Columbia University, USA
Dan Frangopol, Lehigh University, USA
Ravindra Gettu, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India
Gerd Grohe, KMG Architekten, Germany
Lothar Gruendig, TU Berlin, Germany
Jean-Pierre Jaspart, University of Liege, Belgium
Jens Jensen, Cowi, Denmark
Eduardo Júlio, University of Coimbra, Portugal
Erol Karacabeyli, FPInnovations, Canada

xxiii

ICSA.indb xxiii 6/1/2010 9:10:35 PM

 Kourosh Kayvani, Connell Wagner, Australia
Ulrich Knaack, TU Delft, Germany
Jan Knippers, University of Stuttgart, Germany
Jochen Köhler, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ETH, Switzerland
Jörg Lange, TU Darmstadt, Germany
Josep Ignasi de Llorens Duran, School of Architecture, Spain
Paulo Lourenço, University of Minho, Portugal
Kimmo Lylykangas, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
José Mendes, University of Minho, Portugal
Paulo Mendonça, University of Minho, Portugal
Samuli Miettinen, JKMM Architects, Finland
Climent Molins, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain
David A. Nethercot, Imperial College London, UK
Robert Off, Institute for Membrane and Shell Technology e.V., Germany
Andrew Ogorzalek, PCKO Architects, UK
José Pequeno, DST, S.A./University of Minho, Portugal
Maurizio Piazza, University of Trento, Italy
Ricardo Pittella, Arup, USA
Rui Póvoas, University of Porto, Portugal
Humberto Roman, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil
Gerhard Schickhofer, Graz University of Technology, Austria
Luís Simões da Silva, University of Coimbra, Portugal
Ian Smith, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland
H.H. Snijder, Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
Jiri Strasky, Technical University of Brno, Czech Republic
Man-Chun Tang, T.Y. Lin International, USA
André Tavares, Dafne Editora, Portugal
Tomi Toratti, Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT), Finland
Franjo Turcic, Civil Engineering Institute of Croatia, Croatia
Frans V. Herwijnen, Technical University of Eindhoven, Netherlands
Yves Weinand, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland

CONFERENCE LOCAL ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

Paulo Cruz, University of Minho, Portugal

Tiago Abecasis, Tal Projecto, Portugal
Pedro Bandeira, University of Minho, Portugal
Francisco Javier Estévez Cimadevila, University of la Coruña, Spain
António Barreiros Ferreira, Tech. University of Lisbon, Portugal
Luís Câncio Martins, J.L. Câncio Martins, Portugal
Vítor Murtinho, University of Coimbra, Portugal
João Pires da Fonseca, University of Beira Interior, Portugal
Rui Póvoas, University of Porto, Portugal
Jorge Branco, University of Minho, Portugal
Isabel Valente, University of Minho, Portugal

ICSA2010 MINI-SYMPOSIA

Mini-Symposium on “Tectonics” in Architecture: Between Aesthetics and Ethics, organized

by Patrizia Trovalusci and Lucio Valerio Barbera
Mini-Symposium on Transparent Structural Materials – Glass and Plastic, organized by
Johann-Dietrich Wörner, Konrad Bergmeister and Jens Schneider

xxiv

ICSA.indb xxiv 6/1/2010 9:10:35 PM

 Mini-Symposium on Timber Construction, organized by Ian Smith, Gerhard Schickhofer,
Jochen Köhler and Thomas Bogensperger

ICSA2010 SPECIAL-SEMINAR

Megastructures – Architecture_Play_Structure, organized by Nuno Grande and Pedro Bandeira

xxv

ICSA.indb xxv 6/1/2010 9:10:35 PM

ICSA.indb xxvi 6/1/2010 9:10:35 PM
 Structures and Architecture – Cruz (Ed.)
© 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-49249-2

Conference sponsors (as of April 20, 2010)

PLATINUM SPONSORS

• SECIL – Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento, S.A.

GOLD SPONSORS

• BETAR – Consultores, LDA

xxvii

ICSA.indb xxvii 6/1/2010 9:10:35 PM

 INSTITUTIONAL SPONSORS (as of April 20, 2010)

Technical Associations:
• ECCS – European Convention for Constructional Steelwork
• IABMAS – International Association for Bridge Maintenance and Safety
• IABSE – International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering
• TensiNet

Other Institutions:
• ACE – Architects’ Council of Europe/Conseil des Architectes D’Europe
• AIJ – Architectural Institute of Japan
• ASCE – American Society of Civil Engineers
• CES – China Civil Engineering Society
• CM – Construção Magazine
• Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian
• Ordem dos Arquitectos
• SEI – Structural Engineering Institute/American Society of Civil Engineers
• TheStructuralEngineer.info Website

TECHNICAL EXHIBITION PARTICIPANTS (as of April 20, 2010)

• BETAR – Consultores, LDA

• ECCS – European Convention for Constructional Steelwork
• IABSE – International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering
• SECIL – Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento, S.A.
• Taylor & Francis Group

xxviii

ICSA.indb xxviii 6/1/2010 9:10:36 PM

 Keynote lectures

ICSA.indb 1 6/1/2010 9:10:37 PM

ICSA.indb 2 6/1/2010 9:10:37 PM
 Structures and Architecture – Cruz (Ed.)
© 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-49249-2

Architectural values, altruism and innovation in a changing world

I. Ritchie
Ian Ritchie Architects, London, UK

ABSTRACT: I will try to explain why I believe we are at the beginning of new design
paradigm—an important new movement in urbanism and architecture whose visual aesthetic
will be multifarious—yet derived from a creative synthesis of science, ecology and ethics. This
opposes recent architectural ‘isms’, especially superficial and selfish architecture that gratifies
itself on hyperbole to gain media self-aggrandisements.
Intelligent, social and selfless architectural expression capable of the most marvellous and
spiritually uplifting engineered structures must challenge turn-of-the century stunt-making
architectural gymnastics.
I will address five questions.
1. How does our intellectual heritage shape our actions?
2. What are we thinking about today?
3. How are we behaving as designers?
4. How should we design today?
5. How should we make things?

1 HOW DOES OUR INTELLECTUAL HERITAGE SHAPE OUR ACTIONS?

2,500 years ago the Greeks sought to reconcile the idea of ‘perpetual change and eternal
becoming’ put forward by Heraclitus with that of the ‘unchangeable being’ of Parmenides.
The outcomes were to have a profound impact upon the development of our western society.
The wholeness of life had been split and investigations of the human soul and ethics, rather
than matter, dominated western society until the renaissance when Descartes focused pre-
sented the idea of mind and matter. In 1927, The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum
mechanics suggested that in observing an event, man changes the reality of it, i.e. man and
nature back to interdependence. The design paradigm I am referring to observes an urban-
ized world globalizing with little evident shared humanity and requires a fundamental change
in the way we think, behave, design and make.

2 WHAT ARE WE THINKING ABOUT TODAY?

Descartes, “I think therefore I exist (am).” homo faber, “I think therefore I make.”; homo
consumeris, “I buy therefore I am”; homo sapiens sapiens, “I exist therefore I care”.
Our individual and collective thinking is sandwiched between a moral environment full of
bureaucratic rules and regulations telling us how to behave and to design and a moral vacuum
occupied by international agencies acting on behalf of our conscience. In the West, it seems
that we are becoming less responsible for our lives, not more so, and financial reward can be
obtained from being irresponsible towards others and the environment. Let’s not delude our-
selves, we live in an age of quantity not quality, of individualism not community. We fought
to promote and defend our sense of freedom, and this historic idea is now a handicap to
progress. Not only has technological progress been part responsible for fractured families and
communities, but so has our hunger for individual freedom. We have a worldwide society so

ICSA.indb 3 6/1/2010 9:10:37 PM

 deeply interdependent. The new paradigm is predicated on the notion of sharing our planet,
but more fundamentally on recognizing that each thought of each person will affect others
and the environment.

3 HOW ARE WE BEHAVING AS DESIGNERS?

Sustainability is survival. Architects too often ‘greenwash’ architecture but understand little
of the impact or value of these ‘green’ additions. Engineers rely on facts, which in turn are
often without sufficient truth or understood impact. I think that most designers believe
that they are essentially doing good. In simple terms, most believe that a sustainable design
approach is one which gets more value out of less material, pollutes less, wastes less, recy-
cles more and does not reduce the future choices. At the moment, the contradictions are
inescapable between helping to create a more intelligent world in which moral and social
justice rather than economic justice prevails and producing architecture within the present
economic status quo. The tragedy is that design in our present society still remains judged,
both qualitatively and quantitatively by the question—does it attract the consumer?

4 HOW SHOULD WE DESIGN TODAY?

This question is based upon the assumption that our ecological and socio-economic irre-
sponsibility cannot continue. Cities are part of the global ecosystem and reflect the values
of those who have contributed to their development and evolution. We may be moving from
an Industrial Age via an Information Age into an Ecological Age yet we live in cities which
are stuck in an industrialized format, central to global ecology and thus central to the solu-
tion. Can we design cities to become better balanced with nature and thus the potential for
a healthier culture? A city can be an eco-polis embodying ethics, concepts and programs for
eco-logical restoration—a place we heal and which then heals us, where everyone understands
that a healthy biosphere is vital. Thinking differently and considering how we re-design design
will make our designs not only better assets for investors, but also for the environment and
our collective humanity.

5 HOW SHOULD WE MAKE THINGS & WHAT ROLE OF AESTHETICS?

The materials and physical spaces that our architectural thinking ultimately has to engage
with is a powerful witness to homo faber, but today, we must ask more difficult questions if we
are to find solutions that respond to the idea of homo sapiens sapiens. Realistically there can
be no revolution in the industrialised regions of the world with regard to the way we extract,
process, manufacture, distribute, design and consume materials—only a long campaign or
catastrophe it seems will eventually change our habits. The short term view of material gain
and the difficulty we have in altering these values could change when legislation (rather than
hope for universal enlightenment) brings about a different set of criteria and performance.
If we believe more in the power of collaboration, cooperation, and the fundamental altru-
ism of humans as part of our instinct for survival then this paradigm shift will become more
evident and perhaps more valued. We need to redefine the principle of an economic structure
in the world with ethical values. We have the ability to create competitive new industries and
products that pose no health risk, that positively serve us and our entire biosphere.

6 THE ROLE OF AESTHETICS IN HOW WE ‘MAKE’ THINGS

While the balance of nature with man is part of our recent zeitgeist, there has been a significant
shift towards an ecological one which engages a moral dimension. Creating architectural
4

ICSA.indb 4 6/1/2010 9:10:37 PM

 beauty may come from engaging with nature’s non-linearity and its entropic qualities and
permits visual metaphors for designing with rather than against nature. Aesthetic intent is
use-less (unquantifiable) work but has as much, if not more, impact upon how we feel as
economy or efficiency. It is the lack of this aesthetic dimension which renders the cumulative
effect of many parts of built environment so demoralising. The result of giving value to the
moral aesthetic as well as the appearance of the work is that it will indicate how responsibly
we have acted with regard to future generations. It is a key part of the homo faber and homo
sapiens sapiens heritance that we pass on. We need to understand better how our designs
affect our senses—separately, together—and upon our minds. In other words, to design with
the mind in mind.

7 CONCLUSION

This essay expresses some of my thoughts about a new design paradigm concerning: envi-
ronmental impact in a more complete sense; quality in its most profound sense, and cultural
identity in its most politically controversial sense. My proposition has been to identify that
design should embrace not only homo faber, but homo sapiens sapiens. Maybe then we would
be able to dispense with a predilection for creating empty fashions to feed an avaricious
consumer society, and allow a better understanding of the social, physical, economic and
philosophical aspects to inform and inspire design.

ICSA.indb 5 6/1/2010 9:10:37 PM

ICSA.indb 6 6/1/2010 9:10:37 PM
 Structures and Architecture – Cruz (Ed.)
© 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-49249-2

Treatment of the form in structural engineering

J. Martínez-Calzón
President of MC2 Engineering Consultant Office, Madrid, Spain

ABSTRACT: Since the end of the 19th century, structural engineering applied to the
domain of the great architecture has come to be one of the most appealing areas of creativity
in the field of resistant structures, in parallel with those of bridges and great industrial build-
ings and energy plants, which are presently going through a full evolution.
The relationship between Architecture and Structural Engineering has experienced in
recent times a remarkable transformation, on account of the frantic race for originality, sur-
prise or media impact, which the private or political powers demand for landmark projects
worldwide.
At present, and as a result of the impulse which the relatively recent introduction of the
computer has promoted into the unrestrained genesis of unprecedented architectural forms,
this Architecture-Structural Engineering (A-S) relationship reaches a high level of mutual
involvement. An increasing number of these forms could be defined as “free”, not adjusted
or far from structurally sound arrangements, which on the contrary, would be defined as
“harmonized” geometries and which, in a maximum level of resistant effectiveness, would
constitute what the author refers to as “canonical” forms.
This comes to configure the delicate situation in which we, the structural engineers, pres-
ently find ourselves, greatly being subjected to the “empire of the form” and which has
monopolized the field of landmark buildings, hence needing a refined and thorough struc-
tural processing for their concretion. On the contrary, and as a favourable outcome, this
processing is undoubtedly giving rise to interesting innovations and work trends.
Therefore, the A-S collaboration now raises a large set of questions and reflections about
the different action possibilities, among which the following are to be highlighted:
− How should the structural engineer approach the resistant problem posed by these free
forms?
− Is it adequate that the structural engineer grants maximum freedom of treatment dur-
ing the genesis of these free forms to the architect and later try to fit in the best resistant
arrangement, with great effort? Or must he try to restrain this freedom of the architect in
order to reach a compromise between the absolute free form and one which improves the
low structural adequacy of this kind of forms to acceptable principles?
− Looking at the real cost of making resistant this originality, to what extent the search for
originality has to be primordial or consented?
− What should be the engineer’s position in the judgment and attitude towards the archi-
tectural forms which claim a structural solution which is particularly special, difficult or
complex?
It is the aim of this paper to give a brief synthesis of the positions the author upholds
when answering to all these and many more questions, as well as the attitudes with which
they have to be approached. This synthesis focuses on two fundamental proposals (both in
terms and ideas):
1. Canonicity and Tensibility: Proficiency
2. Constructivity and self-construction: Suitability

ICSA.indb 7 6/1/2010 9:10:38 PM

 which allow expressing these views on the subject of the appealing domain of civil
engineering.

1 CANONICITY AND TENSIBILITY: PROFICIENCY

In this present state of over-proficiency and certain anti-canonicity, deeply manneristic, open
and free state of the empire of the form, and as a manner to think and act, it is appropriate
to manage and study a concept which the author designates as “tensibility”; in an attempt
to systematize and determine, in a more active and operative way, the imaginative and some-
times fantastic needs stated by the architectural design through this mannerism of the power,
of the symbol and of the icon; providing:
− First, structural arrangements which, by restricting slightly the flow of whimsical or
extravagant requirements, allow achieving a praiseworthy level of structural design that
can enclose those attitudes; hence giving the system a certain operative coherence.
− Second, structural outlines of great purposeful and methodological intensity aimed at
reintroducing a recovering vision of rational design into the architectural thinking. A vision
which, by following controlled processes with a strong internal logic, leads to solutions of
great beauty in an environment of “open rigour”.
The following dilemmas:
Unleashed geometry vs. harmonized geometry
Free form vs. significant form
should be redirected towards their serene and reflective areas.
The mentioned concept of tensibility can be defined as follows:
1. The capacity to use optimally the maximum dimensions of the outline of the building in
order to arrange in this space a structural system able to solve the load bearing and con-
struction problems without altering the proposed architectonical spirit by using chiefly
canonical arrangements which are auspiciously conditioned and which optimize the inter-
nal energy of the bearing system, hereby achieving the optimum efficiency and the least
general cost of the structure: methods, materials and erection process.
2. The intrinsic ability of an arrangement or structural typology to drive the forces generated
by the loads working onto the structure, as actively as possible, towards its bearing points.
It can be enhanced by means of:
− an objective internal order
− the balance between the material, the force field and the space; exploiting maximally
the formal configuration and the causal arrangement of the elements of the structure in
order to promote energetic-straining behaviors close to the canonical ideals defined by
the concept of minimal internal deformation energ.
With this conceptual tool we are able to face rigorously the unstoppable avalanche of free
formal proposals claimed by architecture which are definitely strange to whatever compromise
with the resistant system. The performance is redirected towards deeper and more consistent
positions with a structural technique able to achieve proficiency of the process. Keeping in
mind this proficiency—understood as the insightful knowledge of the structural fact in all its
aspects as well as the skill to use it creatively via the resistant materials—how should the struc-
tural engineer approach the load bearing problems he is faced with due to these free forms?
There are three possibilities to answer this question:
1. To accept these free forms integrally and constitute them into possibly unsuitable resistant
systems, forcing its elements to comply with these free configurations by over-sizing them
widely so as to be able to drive windingly the tensional flow of the internal stresses.
2. The opposite extreme would consist of trying to insert a structural solution into the exist-
ing formal space, as intensively canonical as possible and with a great load bearing and
resistant capacity; seizing from the architect some areas of that space which had been
8

ICSA.indb 8 6/1/2010 9:10:39 PM

 designed for fulfilling building’s functionality, in a way that the rest remains adapted to the
required architectural form, whatever that is.
3. Or finally, to force or slightly modify, as subtly as possible, the proposed free form in
order to try to approximate the system—mostly quite casual and without real consist-
ent schemes—towards an active-resistant arrangement on behalf of the material of the
said system, and this by integrating precisely tuned structural arrangements into the
architecture. This could be designated as “real proficiency” which intrinsically leads to
a favourable fulfilment of the solution at optimal cost.
This last idea or way to operate with respect to the free form, which is the one the author
advocates, tries to redirect this free form towards others which internally include what may be
defined as the “significant form” of a structure. This quality and arrangement, which come
from the proficiency of the field of materials, have to be compositional, analytical and con-
structive, because such is the severity and intensity this proficiency must incorporate.

2 CONSTRUCTIVITY AND SELF-CONSTRUCTION: SUITABILITY

Great architectural structures must be set up with a tensible thought and vision of construc-
tivity from the very initial moment of their design process.
Thanks to the tremendous development of various auxiliary techniques used in the con-
struction of great buildings, the concretion of very sophisticated designs is nowadays pos-
sible using conventional and industrialized processes, methods or systems which are fully
standardized and of high quality. In many cases, these solutions are nevertheless wasting
important quantities of effectiveness, energy and time made available by the internal synergy
of the building. This synergy is characteristic for large structures and, in an ideal maximum,
achieves their “self-construction”. Self-construction would be to constructivity as tensibility
is to structural canonicity: a quest for superior processes in a certain domain.
This ideal self-construction focuses on what could be defined as the evolutive capacity of
the substructures which are embedded into the final structure and which could be obtained
by cutting or dividing them temporarily. They constitute successive or staged active areas
so to enable the system’s growing progress up to its final state without requiring tempo-
rary auxiliary structures or arrangements except the ones needed for the mobility of these
subsystems.
But even more important is the fact that, in many cases, the integration of the construc-
tion process into the design process of the structure can lead to very auspicious solutions;
sometimes barely demanding substantial changes to be applied to the fundamental ideas or
concepts of the structure; sometimes using or altering the design of those structures in order
to achieve, by means of their internal resources, processes which are cheaper, more efficient
and faster than the more conventional or very sophisticated ones.
If in the conception of the architectural-structural design of the whole building these kinds
of self-construction processes are taken into account, the said construction process may
merge with the final design, as a desideration and maximum qualification of constructiv-
ity. Thus, the constructive process also defines part of the building’s geometry or image and
endorses sublimely this intrinsic concept of self-construction so to create a kind of intensive
and astonishing supra-system of maximum quality that captures and reflects the enormous
esthetical and creative capacity of the A-S relation when pushed to its best compromise.
Finally, the author’s description of several recent buildings helps achieving a good under-
standing of all the theoretical proposals stated. In some way or another, the concepts of
tensibility and self-construction have been applied to the design of the resistant structures of
these buildings.
The buildings analized are:
Telefónica Arena, Madrid
Gas Natural Building, Barcelona
Teatros del Canal, Madrid
9

ICSA.indb 9 6/1/2010 9:10:39 PM

 Torre Espacio, Madrid
Roof of the New Airport of Alicante
Zero Zero Building, Barcelona
La Pallaresa Complex, Barcelona
Spanish Pavillon for Expo 2010, Shanghai
Nevertheless, the said processes were also applied in other better known but remote projects,
such as: the Tower of Collserola, Palau Sant Jordi, Palacio de Congresos de Salamanca and
many others works.

10

ICSA.indb 10 6/1/2010 9:10:39 PM

 Structures and Architecture – Cruz (Ed.)
© 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-49249-2

An ontology of structured space

B.N. Sandaker
AHO, The Oslo School of Architecture and Design, Oslo, Norway

ABSTRACT: The present paper discusses two basic approaches to an understanding of

structural form; the mechanical and the spatial. While the former engages considerations of
technological interest and scientific relevance, the latter sees structures as intrinsically belong-
ing in the realm of architectural and spatial creation. On these grounds a framework for
aesthetic understanding and appreciation of structures is elaborated. Finally, structures in an
architectural context cannot properly be addressed without acknowledging ideological issues,
whether they act as tacit preconceptions or are explicitly formulated. Design ideologies of a
mechanical nature are easier to identify and formulate than those based on aspirations for
spatial expression, but it is equally important to articulate views on the latter.

1 STRUCTURES AS SPATIAL GENERATORS AND MECHANICAL OBJECTS

How should we go about to establish a conceptual model for what in reality is a holistic
understanding of structures in an architectural context? I will suggest that the most basic
observation is that structures play a role both as provider of necessary stiffness and strength,
and as instruments for creating architectural spaces that embody certain qualities. This
admitting of a dual function, a mechanical and a spatial, proves rewarding when it comes
to understanding and appreciating the multifaceted design displayed by structures in vari-
ous architectural settings, ranging from pure force systems following a structural efficiency
logic to structures designed to act iconographicly, as images: On the one hand there is a
load-bearing function to care for which helps to explain structural form from a technologico/
scientific point of view, as an object required to display stiffness, strength and stability, while
on the other hand the structure partakes in an organization of architectural spaces and must
be understood according to this function.

1.1 Spatial aspects: Utility, Contextuality and Iconography

The primary reason, of course, for the existence of structures is the practical purpose they
serve. By serving this purpose the logical outcome is that structures have to “transport” loads
from the point of their origin and down to the ground. Structures become load-bearing.
This is the natural order of the relationship between the “why” and the “how”, or reason
and consequence: practical purpose comes first, and physical necessity follows. The choice
of structural system and structural articulation is highly dependant on the practical func-
tion associated with it. In the case of the large vierendeel beams of the Grande Arche de
la Défense in Paris by architect Otto von Spreckelsen and engineer Erik Reitzel, there is no
way to understand the particular structural choice without recognizing that the structure is
actually accommodating human activity within its structural depth, enabling people to walk
freely in the large space in and between the series of beams while looking at art exhibitions.
Furthermore; there are other functions that we may require of structures in architecture,
even if these may not be of a practical nature. Structures are in some cases tied so closely
to a particular architectural idea that the architectural context is seen to strongly suggest
their shape and organization. A result of this may in some cases be that their load-bearing

11

ICSA.indb 11 6/1/2010 9:10:40 PM

 Figure 1. The large vierendeel beams of the Grande Arche de la Défense in Paris (1989) (left). The
utility function of accommodating for people within its structural depth has been an important premise
for the design decisions (Photo: B.N. Sandaker). In Gehry’s Experience Music Project, Seattle 2000
(right), structural form adapts to the overall, formal concept, letting the architectural context act as a
form generator (Photo: Gehry Partners).

Figure 2. Two projects displaying iconographical aspects of structural form. The Cabaret Tabourettli,
Bern by S. Calatrava (left) (Photo: Paulo Rosselli) and Stuttgart airport terminal, 1991 (right) (Photo:
B.N. Sandaker).

logic is disturbed and even violated. Structural considerations may typically be guided by a
pragmatism that makes structural form dependant on formal decisions made on completely
different grounds. The structures become what they become from reasons other than mechan-
ical requirements, and their design is consciously subordinate to the overall, formal concept.
The architecture of Frank O. Gehry might be seen to promote structures of this type, as is
also the case for other structures in the deconstructivist tradition. The EMP project in Seattle
by Gehry displays steel beams of varying, and not overly efficient, shape to accommodate the
highly intricate external form of the building, designed from the “skin in”.
Finally, it is also true that some structures are designed to make observers see something
else in them, representing an object outside of itself, something which is not really there. The
idea is to strengthen the perception of a particular presence that is thought to enhance the
structure’s architectural qualities as well as the overall qualities of the architectural work.
I think of this as structures having iconographic functions. Examples are many; among them
are Santiago Calatrava’s “musical” beams for the Cabaret Tabourettli concert hall in Bern
(1987), and the tree-like structures of the Stuttgart airport terminal by architects von Gerkan
und Marg (1991). Neither can be fully understood without invoking the concept of mimicry.

1.2 Mechanical aspects: Technology vs. science

If we now turn to what I consider to be the object-nature of structures, we see structures as
load-bearing objects that possess certain mechanical properties. What matters here, how-
ever, is not merely the questions of their capacity for strength and stiffness, the aspects that
lend themselves readily to scientific analysis, but also what I think of as being structures’
technological aspects; how their parts are manufactured and how they are actually built.
Design decisions on how structures and structural components are produced and erected
also result in some precise features of form, especially on the detailing level, that should
be brought up for consideration when understanding and critiquing of structural form is
12

ICSA.indb 12 6/1/2010 9:10:40 PM

 Figure 3. A taxonomy of aspects of structural form.

aimed at. It is particularly important when studying structures that they are not only looked
upon as finished products, but also as manifestations of certain manufacturing processes.
Hence, I suggest to look upon the mechanical functions of a structure, its object nature,
from both a scientific and a technological point of view, recognizing that there is a difference
between the two that makes us observe and understand different things. Both technological
decisions and scientific reasoning become design factors. Each, on their own premises, puts
their imprint on the finished design and together they form a necessary platform for explain-
ing and understanding structures as mechanical objects.

2 AN AESTHETICS OF STRUCTURES

The central question is how should we understand an aesthetics of structures, and in what
way should we make our viewpoints operative when making aesthetic judgements? I offer the
following formulation: Given that aesthetic appreciation refers to experiences, “aesthetics”
should not be seen as an aspect of structures in the same way that we think of mechanical
and spatial functions. We appreciate structural form not as “things” added to a functional
skeleton like so much ornament, separable from mechanical and spatial aspects, but as the
pleasurable experience of appropriateness. We perceive that mechanical and spatial aspects of
the form emphasize an expression of unity and intellectual coherence. To put it differently:
the aesthetic experience of structures is constituted through the basic concepts of the structure’s
mechanical and spatial functions.
How can the manner in which we think about structures affect that experience? I take as a
point of departure that the aesthetic experience intimately relates to what the object actually
is and in the case of artefacts; what the object might be for. Without some idea or concept of
the object, it will probably be impossible to experience it properly and to make any kind of
aesthetic judgement. “Our sense of the beauty of an object”, Scruton says, “is always depend-
ent on a conception of that object” (Scruton 1979: 10). It is possible to perceive structural
form as independent of its material or its function as a load-bearing device, etc., but in such
cases we do not see that form as a structure. It follows from this that we cannot discuss the
aesthetic qualities of structures as if they were just another piece of “fine art”. To be able to
understand structures aesthetically, we must bring to our perception of them those concep-
tions that seem relevant. In fact, when aesthetics is concerned, our experience depends on
how we think about the object, and those conceptions are very much part of our aesthetic
experience of it. Pleasure then, to use the words of Scruton, “is not so much an effect of its
object, as a mode of understanding it” (Scruton 1979: 112).

3 STRUCTURAL IDEOLOGIES

The ideologies most readily identified with structural form are all tied to the mechanical
performance of structures. These are
− technological/economic optimization, which embraces mainstream engineering and is
probably the most common ideology applied to structural form. The proverb suggesting
13

ICSA.indb 13 6/1/2010 9:10:40 PM

 that “an engineer is someone who can do for one buck what any other idiot can do for
ten” is the short version of this ideology. University training of engineers is particularly
concerned with this one.
− lightness, which makes structural efficiency, that is the idea of spending as little material
as possible and thereby reducing weight and increasing visual lightness, into a design phi-
losophy. Buckminster Fullers well-known rhetoric question “what is the weight of your
building?” addresses this ideology.
− the expression of forces, which advocates the idea that structural systems and structural
elements should be designed and shaped according to “the flow of forces”: For example,
when bending moments increase in a cantilever towards the support, an increase of the
structural depth should follow. This ideology has some characteristics in common with
that of lightness, but is not the same. While force diagrams influence heavily decisions of
structural forms, this ideology does not presuppose that the structure represents a mini-
mum solution. Pier Luigi Nervi is probably the most well-known exponent of this view,
which was later shared by a significant number of architects of the “high-tech” era.
Contributing to ideologies which address spatial issues I will suggest that structural
qualities should be sought within an architectural ambition. This means to seek an appro-
priate design with respect to materials, to mechanical efficiency and to the structural scale,
but above all to find a balanced approach mediating spatial and purely mechanical issues.
My own position on this is twofold:
− architectural form and shape should be employed structurally,
− structural form should be architecturally considered and should strengthen architectural
intentions for space and expression.
The first statement stresses the importance of looking at the architectural envelope, its
solid, with an eye for structural configuration. I wish to promote the idea of form and shape
having a structural potential that should be exploited, renouncing the commonplace method
of dressing an orthogonal, structural framework with a non-committing, shaped skin. This
works both ways; building outlines and architectural spaces should preferably be designed
to offer a reasonable load-bearing potential. The second statement addresses the ambition
that structural systems and elements should be considered spatially relevant, and if seen fit,
should be shaped for integral performance and offer more that pure strength.

REFERENCES

Addis, B. 1994. The Art of the Structural Engineer. London: Artemis.

Balmond, C. 2002. informal. Munich, Berlin, London, New York: Prestel Verlag.
Billington, D. 1983. The Tower and the Bridge. New York: Basic Books.
Britton, K. 2001. Auguste Perret. London: Phaidon.
Jastrow, J. 1971. Fact and Fable in Psychology. Freeport NY: Books for Library Press.
Rice, P. 1993. An Engineer Imagines. London: Artemis.
Sandaker, B.N. 2008. On Span and Space. London/New York: Routledge.
Scruton, R.1980. The aesthetics of architecture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Torroja, E. 1958. Philosophy of Structures. Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953) 1968. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

14

ICSA.indb 14 6/1/2010 9:10:41 PM

 Structures and Architecture – Cruz (Ed.)
© 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-49249-2

The architecture of special structures

A.J. Reis
Technical University of Lisbon, and GRID Consulting Engineers, Portugal

ABSTRACT: The engineering architectural design of special structures like long span
roofs, towers and bridges is discussed. A variety of design examples as developed by the
author’s design office is presented.

1 THE OBJECT

How to define a structure as being a special one? Spans, piers height, curvatures are very
often parameters adopted to define a structure as being a special structure. Large span roofs,
bridges or high rise towers are associated to “special structures”. Airport and rail stations,
exhibition halls, football stadiums (Fig. 1) are among a variety of constructions requiring an
engineering concept, just from the beginning of the design process, which may play a decisive
role in the architecture of these types of constructions.
The layout of the roof structure in Fig. 1 was the result of an interactive process with the
architect design team from RISCO (Lisbon) However, the layout of the roof, was governed by
structural engineering concepts The roof areas where divided in two different typologies- grid
structures and suspended structures from long span (180,5 m) arch truss girders. The two dif-
ferent typologies were associated to produce a single object for outside or inner side views.
A broadcast tower (Figure 2), 123 m height (concrete up to 64 m and steel in 59 m) built
in Lisbon in 1994, was the result of a joint design team between architects (BUGIO, Lisbon)
and engineers (GRID, Lisbon). The cross section is completely asymmetric (drop shape) as
a result of a compromise between structural engineering, aesthetics aerodynamics and func-
tional requirements (Max. rotations 0,5° at 106 m for 100 km/h wind gusts).
A different role, for engineers and architects, may be accepted to bridges since the object is
basically a structure. So the main bridge concept should be a structural engineering concept
including its construction scheme. Apart from being structural objects, bridges reflect the art
of structural engineering Aesthetics and environmental integration are main issues in bridge
design. Particular attention shall be given to bridges in environmental sensitive zones like
protected areas (Fig. 3) and bridges in urban spaces [Reis, 1999].

Figure 1. The roof of the Dragão Stadium in Oporto. Main span 180,5 m design by GRID.

15

ICSA.indb 15 6/1/2010 9:10:42 PM

 Figure 2. The Monsanto tower. Elevation, and cross section. Structural design by GRID.

Figure 3. The new railway Sado Crossing Portugal. Design by GRID/GREISCH.

2 HOW FAR SHALL WE GO?

A right balance between structural efficiency, aesthetics and cost, is required for a special
structure. How far should we go compromising structural efficiency and cost to aesthetics?
There is no point on trying to prove the commonly accepted rule—form follows the function
yields the less costly structure with the best appearance. In design practice, there is a cost for
aesthetics. Cable stayed bridges are of course more costly for medium spans than box girders.
However, a slender prestressed concrete voided slab deck may kept with a staying scheme at
a larger end span (50 to 60 m) to cross a river (Figures 4 and 5).
In the case of Figure 4, the deck is seen from the a city park under the bridge. Besides the
Owner (the Municipality of Leiria) wanted an object inducing an opening to modern archi-
tecture, at a low cost. The minimalist image of the bridge with a very slender deck with large
overhangs to be admired from the underneath is highlighted by the harp cable stay system.
The bridge in Figure 5 was designed to be integrated with a railway station and the helix
access ramp. The 3D arrangement of the stay cables and the mast at the intersection of the
access ramp and the deck, the bridge details like anchorages and colors, were envisaged to see
the bridge and the railway station as a single object [Reis, 2001].
16

ICSA.indb 16 6/1/2010 9:10:42 PM

 Figure 4. Bridge over River Liz, Leiria Portugal. Design by GRID.

Figure 5. The Santo Tirso Bridge. Artist view. Bridge/rail station as built. Bridge design by GRID.

Figure 6. Concept for a pedestrian suspension (self anchored) bridge in Serbia design by GRID.

Figure 7. A main pier for a urban viaduct in a roundabout, two bowstring arches for a small bridge
and a urban cable stayed viaduct (night view) design by GRID.

3 THE MAIN ISSUES AND THE DESIGN APPROACH

The concept design (Figure 6) is of course the key issue. Engineers shall understand a bad
concept design, in what concerns aesthetics and site integration, will never turn out in a
good solution no matter the detail development or the sophistication of the numerical model
adopted for the structural design.
The same holds true for architects—a wrong structural architectural concept is a draw-
back for aesthetics. To design a special structure is not a simple structural exercise. The
scale structure/site, how it fits with the environment, usual points for viewing, the right bal-
ance between aesthetics/shape and structural function, slenderness and visual permeability

17

ICSA.indb 17 6/1/2010 9:10:43 PM

 Figure 8. Inside views of the Dragão Stadium (Fig. 1) with suspended plate girders reaching 70 m
spans and from the Restelo stadium with cantilever box girders reducing the bracing system for
aesthetics. Design by GRID.

Figure 9. The 3rd Crossing of the Tagus River in Lisbon Reference (Tender). Design by GRID.

(transparency), order and rhythm of the structural elements, colour/shade/lightening and

details affecting the appearance, shall be considered (Figure 7).
The structure should be thought as a single object in its relationship with the architectural
design and functional requirements. Large span roofs are a challenge for architectural engi-
neering. Inside views (Figure 8) are likely to be so relevant as outside views.

4 THE MAIN GOAL

In some cases, it may be justified to design a bridge “aesthetically detached from the contest”
to be built as a landmark, [Zordan et al. 2010]. For the 3rd Tagus Crossing, there was no
need, to design a spectacular structure; the large infrastructure involved, 7 km long between
river banks and towers for. the cable stayed bridge (540 m span) at the main channel reaching
200 m height, holds by itself. Besides, cost reduction was absolutely required for the feasi-
bility of the project. So, “the simpler the best”. The bridge was envisaged as a single object
(Fig. 9) in the landscape of the Tagus River estuary, reflecting uniformity, order and consist-
ency along the entire length A single type of superstructure—a Warren truss, was adopted,
staying it at the main span (540 m) increasing the structural depth at the secondary channels
(165 m spans).

REFERENCES

Reis A “Urban bridges:exploring ideas and design cases”, SEI,Struct, Engin. Int, Vol. 3, 2001.
Reis A, Pedro J., Pereira, and Sousa D.“Cable stayed bridges for urban spaces”, Proceedings IABSE
Conference Cable Stayed Bridges, Past, Present and Future, Malmo 1999.
Zordan T, Briseghella B, Siviero, E. “The Fourth Bridge over the Grand Canal in Venice: From idea to
Analysis and Construction”, SEI, SEI,Struct, Engin. Int, Vol. 20, 2010.

18

ICSA.indb 18 6/1/2010 9:10:43 PM

 Structures and Architecture – Cruz (Ed.)
© 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-49249-2

Innovative timber constructions

Y. Weinand
EPFL, ENAC, ICC, IBOIS, Lausanne, Switzerland

ABSTRACT: Practical and material orientated academic research has become increasingly
important for architectural practice. This is due to several reasons. First of all, it contributes
to contemporary concepts in architecture and improves their implementation. Today’s archi-
tects are looking for a deeper understanding of technical and technological questions related
to architecture: technology, construction methods as well as structural considerations are no
longer seen as bothersome necessities, as it was often the case in the past. The importance of
those aspects and the potential of including them in the architectural design process as active
stimulus are largely recognized. It’s the limitations in time and capacities that more often
than not confound the realisation of such ambitions. Academic research can fill this gap and
provide architectural practices with the necessary resources.
Second, research is in charge for finding answers to one of the biggest architectural chal-
lenges of our time, namely sustainable building. Society’s burgeoning awareness of the urgent
need to use renewable materials for building construction is undeniable and has become an
important parameter for architectural production. As a result, timber constructions experi-
ence a new popularity and the importance of research on timber increased. The potential of
this research becomes evident with some of the latest developments and innovations in this
domain. Cross laminated timber panels open up new dimensions for massive timber con-
struction and prefabrication in context with the digital chain. Technologies like wood weld-
ing or the densification of wood create new possibilities not only for architecture but also for
furniture and product design. Timber as building material is therefore capable of satisfying
both the demands of contemporary architecture as well as the requirements of sustainable
building. By doing so, a new generation of timber structures could be created.
The here presented research lines ‘Innovative Timber Constructions’ pursues an inter-
disciplinary approach and links the three domains of architecture, structural engineering
and timber construction. The research not only opens the way to a new era of innovative
timber constructions and timber construction techniques. It initializes the unprecedented
exploration and study of timber related structures. Indeed timber has the dual capacities to
be formed and to retain a given form.
Aesthetic and structural qualities of the shown projects have raised a wide range of ques-
tions and many still remain to be addressed. There appears to be something remarkable in
the interaction of the material and the formal qualities that produces a distinguished quality
of design. It’s not clear if the topological or tectonic properties are a satisfying answer to
this. It is perhaps the elevation of materiality to a level of prominence in design and design
research which can explain this intellectual resonance and its implications for architecture as
a material practice.

19

ICSA.indb 19 6/1/2010 9:10:45 PM

ICSA.indb 20 6/1/2010 9:10:45 PM
 Structures and Architecture – Cruz (Ed.)
© 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-49249-2

The changing relationship between architects and structural

engineers

A.J. Macdonald
University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

ABSTRACT: The paper presents an overview of the relationship between architects and
structural engineers as it has developed from the beginning of the twentieth century until
the present day. This was a period in which very major changes occurred in the world of
architecture as architects sought to find modes of visual expression which were appropriate
to the Modern age; the paper explores the contribution of the parallel world of structural
engineering to those changes.
One highly significant factor during the period was the development of the technologies
of steel and reinforced concrete. These were readily adopted by architects for incorporation
into the new architecture, bringing about changes in the methodologies needed for the design
and realisation of buildings. These developments resulted in the evolution of a new profes-
sion, that of the consulting structural engineer—a practitioner who is responsible for the
design of the structural aspects of buildings and who works somewhere along a spectrum of
collaborative relationship with architects in order to bring this about. This spectrum ranges
from, at one end, engineers who have produced architecture in their own right, working as
architects rather than with architects, to those, at the other end, who have sought to form
close collaborations with architects and to evolve designs in partnership with them.
The paper reviews the full range of such relationships. It considers the work of engineers
such as P L Nervi and Eduardo Torroja who evolved designs largely in isolation from archi-
tects. It also deals with the work of engineers such as Ove Arup and Peter Rice, who devel-
oped close relationships with architects and who attempted, with varying levels of success in
this respect, to evolve the designs of buildings in a fully collaborative way. As well as examin-
ing their works, the paper considers the views of the engineers on the role of engineering in
architecture, as expressed in their writings. The contribution of engineers to the evolution of
Modern architecture is also critically assessed.
The views of architects on the role of engineering in architecture are also considered. Some
prominent members of the profession, such as Norman Foster and Richard Rogers, profess
a deep interest in technology and have made dramatically overt use of the imagery of struc-
tural technology in their buildings, while others, such as Daniel Libeskind or Frank Gehry,
have tended to ignore this aspect of building design or, at most, use it in variously symbolic
ways. The paper presents critical appraisals of the built works of architects subscribing to
this range of approaches in an attempt to identify the true nature of the contribution which
structural engineering has made, and continues to make, to architecture.
The paper concludes with a brief review of current practice and a prediction of how the
relationship between architects and engineers may develop in future in the context of the
need to develop an architecture which is ecologically sustainable.

21

ICSA.indb 21 6/1/2010 9:10:46 PM

ICSA.indb 22 6/1/2010 9:10:46 PM
 Structures and Architecture – Cruz (Ed.)
© 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-49249-2

Concrete immaterial structures

A. Tavares
Universidade do Minho, Guimarães, Portugal

ABSTRACT: Among the new building technologies that transformed architectural prac-
tices in the early twentieth century, the use of concrete enjoyed a privileged position. It trans-
formed the inner core of building practices, calling for a highly specialised and centralised
knowledge in the design process. Simultaneously, it led to an impoverishment of the practices
of construction workers. These changes gave rise to a new relationship between clients, archi-
tects and building contractors, with concrete structural systems emerging as an ambiguous
device in architectural history.
In order to give form to concrete structures, architects and engineers work according to
a system of thought that is based on their own personal convictions. Believing in certain
intuitions, which are confirmed either by physical rules or mathematical logic, designers cre-
ate concrete structural strategies that are comprehensible and can actually be built. But is
this structural knowledge tangible? Since we know that concrete has no form of its own,
are concrete structures the result of material knowledge or rather the result of immaterial
structural systems? Is it possible that a building can remain standing through willpower—not
a metaphysical willpower, but a cultural and irrational way of gathering ideas and thoughts
that lead to architectural and structural solutions, which are presented as rational but are, in
fact, nonsense?
If concrete structures are the result of premeditated thought, then a concrete structure has
an immaterial form. Something as concrete as concrete needs to be immaterial in order to
give form to a structural order. However, we can talk about the immateriality of a material,
something like a concrete immaterial structure.
If we abandon the formal analysis of architecture and structural systems, and if we turn
our attention instead to the legitimating mechanisms of society, and the positioning of archi-
tects in different disciplinary fields, we can understand, with greater or lesser clarity, how
their design solutions are informed. It becomes clear that there is no disciplinary autonomy,
either in structural or architectural design. For the building to come into being, the architect
must become entangled in a complex web composed of theories, technologies, virtues and
defects, wills and results, practices and arguments.
It has not been easy for architectural and engineering history to escape the critical practice
of formal analysis, to go beyond the limitations of monographic or biographical studies, or
even to resist the temptation to catalogue everything in accordance with panoramic sur-
veys. These methods have helped to guarantee the resilience of the theoretical framework
of twentieth-century architecture, a framework based on the idea of a rational coherence
between architectural form and structural behaviour. This culture of truth continues to be
present in the thinking of a number of authors and contemporary architects. Working on
the basis of a supposed heritage of the truth of modern architecture, they resort to equivocal
arguments and some of their contemporary architectural practice seems to be heading for a
dead end.
Despite the fact that it has so often been proclaimed rather arrogantly as an autonomous dis-
cipline, architecture exists within a vast social context whose concerns interfere, either explic-
itly or surreptitiously, in the professional practice of architects. Even if these concerns do not
interfere (and architects frequently deny that they do), the impoverishment of their practice

23

ICSA.indb 23 6/1/2010 9:10:47 PM

 is inevitable. But, mostly, precisely because such interference is also inevitable, architectural
practice gives rise to misunderstandings that often prove to be very exasperating.
In looking at concrete structural systems, we shall begin by adopting the hypothesis that
the methodological transformations that occur in the inner core of architecture as a disci-
pline do, in fact, come about by unconventional means, resulting from the way that architects
themselves use the discipline. Such use is circumstantial and results from the combination of
several strategies developed in response to specific requirements that lie outside the discipline
of architecture, and it is in this way that architecture actually transforms itself. Soon, the
concrete disappears and leaves us attempting to follow its trail, just as a private detective
would do, looking for evidence of its action wherever we can. Our first unsuspected clue is
tuberculosis. How is it possible that a disease was able to transform architectural and struc-
tural systems?
We began by looking into the question of concrete and its implications for architectural
design, and, disguised as concrete ideologies, we found a range of medical discourses and
therapeutic practices. This presented us with a new hypothesis: if we were to keep following
the client and forget about the architects’ idiosyncrasies or technological specificities, where
might we be led by the study of some buildings, in which the client was the key figure?
Focusing on concrete structural systems, we will look at the Brazilian example. In the first
half of the twentieth century, various figures were committed to the modernisation of the
country, and the understanding of national architecture as a system of representation was
one of their central concerns. Each of these figures created a field of relations that reflected
on their own creative activity, which, whether centred on concrete structural systems or
expressed in literature, generated a range of reactions and concerns that blurred our focus on
concrete structural systems.
The amorphousness of concrete, deriving from this mixture of mouldable, non-solid mate-
rials, together with the simplification that it brought to construction procedures, also intro-
duced changes into the design process. The material nature of the formal conception, which
was based on the rationality of palpable materials that could be sculpted, disappeared and
led to a practice of dimensioning that required anti-formal abstractions. If on the building
site everything became rougher, in the architects’ and engineers’ offices everything became
more sophisticated. Such sophistication was due to the concentration of specialist knowl-
edge that, when transferred to everyday life, resulted in the pragmatism of simplification.
Simplification that abounded in common sense and proved to be extremely useful, since it
was economically fair.
If we study the cross-border transfer of technical knowledge, we constantly find this sort
of situation in the history of everyday construction. Unlike the extraordinary masterpieces
we love to study, the normal and less revered construction processes lead us to a different idea
of concrete structural systems. Rather than being the result of rational and clever analysis
and equations, concrete structural systems in the first half of the twentieth century were
immaterial conceptions imposed upon the collective imagination of common sense and
everyday life experiences.

24

ICSA.indb 24 6/1/2010 9:10:47 PM

 Structures and Architecture – Cruz (Ed.)
© 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-49249-2

New trends on membrane and shell structures—Examples

of bat-sail and cushion-belt technologies

R. Off
Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Germany
Institute of Membrane and Shell Technologies, IMS e.V.

ABSTRACT: Membrane structures are a well known possibility to create wide span light
weight structures, mainly single layer “big umbrellas” as used in stadium roofs. The light
weight part, that is seen, often has big heavy structures underground or compression and
bending steel parts to counter the high tensile forces. To improve the applications of mem-
brane structures we have to introduce new features to this building method. The Cushion
Belt, Foam Cushion, and Bat-Sail are some of them.

1 CUSHION BELT

Still difficult are the limited load bearing abilities and up to 200% elongation and creep.
Therefore the uniaxial span is 3,5–4,0 m, so the foil has to be clamped by a ridged frame, like
an ordinary window. Another possibility is to support lager cushions with cables. One major
problem is the fact that the cushions are moving on the circular cables and this can damage
the ETFE foil.
The solution is to use ETFE belts with embodied parallel cables done by Bekaert Ltd
Belgium. Belts do have a flat surface in contrary to cables; therefore the foil is not rubbing on
the supportive element. It can even be welded on it, as belt and foil are of the same material
(Figure 4).
The crossing belts can be looked upon as a cable net structure with anticlastic curvature,
while the cushions in-between are synclastic pneumatic structures. As the belts cross over each
other in several layers, interconnected air chambers are created. This enables cushion-belt
structures to be inflated at only one point, while at the same time generating wide spans.
Thus using ETFE as foil, UV translucent facades become possible. “Green House Sky
Scrapers”—Greenhouses with spans of 100 meters and more—can be built as cushion belt
structures.

Figure 1. Cushion belt structure (design concept). Figure 2. Cushion belt structure (overall view).

25

ICSA.indb 25 6/1/2010 9:10:48 PM

 Figure 3. Cushion belt structure (detailed view). Figure 4. ETFE belts with embodied parallel
cables welded.

Figure 5. County embassy of Saxony Anhalt Figure 6. Fitness pavilion with walls and
in Berlin. roof done in ETFE cushions (interior view).

To improve the climatic condition, cushions with 3–5 layers with low-e mirrors, reflecting
the incoming heat radiation, are intended. The final concept is to absorb the heat energy,
while at the same time maintaining translucency. This can be achieved by gases trapped in
one of the chambers or even by distilled water embedded between two layers of foil in a
cushion using them as heat absorber.
The research projects are an experimental atrium cover of the county embassy of Saxony
Anhalt in Berlin (Figure 5), Germany, consisting of two cushions with several ETFE layers
to monitor and influence the thermal behavior within the ETFE cushions.
This concept is developed further in the planning of a fitness pavilion (Figure 6) with walls
and roof done as ETFE cushions to create indoor climatic conditions by the absorption of
heat with the help of the cushions.

2 FOAM-CUSHION

Another way of dealing with physical conditions is to simply insulate the cushion and prevent
that any light can pass through, especially in areas where no light is needed. In these cases we
can simply foam up the cushion, creating a more ridged, but still flexible structure.
This approach is providing two properties: Insulation as well as compression and bending
properties.
In this experiment foam is injected in a double layer anticlastic tensioned membrane
(Figure 7). After hardening it becomes a composite element and hybrid structure (Figure 8).
Punctual loads can now be introduced. Deflection over the whole surface becomes small
compared to pure membrane structures; in fact we can look at it as a shell structure. It can
transfer loads via tension, compression and bending.
26

ICSA.indb 26 6/1/2010 9:10:49 PM

 Figure 7. Foam injected in a double Figure 8. Composite hybrid structure.
layer anticlastic tensioned membrane.

Figure 9. Wing of a Bat. Figure 10. Bat sail experiment.

Figure 11. Compression load scenarios. Figure 12. Bat sail under compression exposed
to several load cases at different positions.

3 BAT-SAIL

The Bat-Sail is a membrane with flexible reinforcement fiber rods, able to take compression
forces under buckling state, secured and anchored within the membrane surface itself. In addi-
tion the compressed rods can extend over the edge cables like wings of a bat. They stiffen the
membrane edges and maximize the covered space—similar to the wing of a bat (Figure 9) or
leaves of a tree.
The first Bat-sail has been build at the monastery Hülfensberg, Germany in 2005, by intui-
tion. No structural calculation was done. Since then the structural behaviour of this hybrid
and form-adaptive structure is content of research. A Bat-sail membrane with 5 fiber rods
under compression was exposed to several load cases at different positions of the membrane
(Figure 12). The results were as expected: The higher the pre-compression in the glass fiber
bats, the more homogeneous the behaviour with less deformation over the whole surface of
the membrane could be noticed (Figure 11).
Testing a single glass fibre rod under compression, even more interesting effects could
be noticed. The introduction of compression force into the flexible fibre rod anchored at
the edge cables automatically increases the stress over the whole structure including the

27

ICSA.indb 27 6/1/2010 9:10:49 PM

 corner points. With the help of the rod the whole structure can be pre-tensioned. Introducing
single vertical loads on the membrane the pre-compression and pretension is reduced at the
bat and the corners. Less force is transferred to the supporting structure, even when applying
additional load to the surface.
The Bat–Sail structure introduces new compressive elements into the “Sea of Tension” as
Buckminster Fuller would state, and it becomes a “tensegrity” membrane with a wide range
of new applications.

28

ICSA.indb 28 6/1/2010 9:10:50 PM

 Technical contributions

“Tectonics” in architecture: Between aesthetics and ethics

ICSA.indb 29 6/1/2010 9:10:51 PM

ICSA.indb 30 6/1/2010 9:10:51 PM
 Structures and Architecture – Cruz (Ed.)
© 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-49249-2

The morphogenesis of shell structures: A conceptual,

computational and constructional challenge

M.A. Chiorino & M. Sassone

Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Italy

ABSTRACT: In the history of construction, shell structures always represented a conceptual

challenge for architects and engineers: from ancient masonry vaults to reinforced concrete
roofs, their intrinsic three dimensional behavior, in terms of stresses and failure mechanisms,
can be hardly predicted by intuition, because it relies on the complex interactions between
geometrical and mechanical properties. In the past the conception was ruled mainly by geo-
metrical proportions or trying to apply the knowledge on mechanics of arches; the diffusion
of reinforced concrete and the introduction of experimentation on physical models, in the
first half of the twentieth century, brought to the golden age of Tedesko, Torroja, Candela
and Isler. The complexity of partial derivative problems related to shells created a gap between
theory and practice until the sixties, and the development of computational technology and
numerical methods did not revolution immediately this field as it could be expected, focus-
ing in the beginning rather on analysis and behavior prediction than on conception. Only
recently the development of optimization techniques, numerical form finding and generative
approaches supported by computing seem open new scenarios to designers.

1 INTRODUCTION

Computational tools based on computer science are largely diffused in the world of design-
ers since a few decades, but only recently they reached a new level of potentiality, through
the development of multiphysics simulation environments, parametric and generative design
applications, evolutionary optimization strategies, file-to-factory manufacturing and so on.
The design and construction of complex structures, a challenge that takes up human beings
since the antiquity, is now approached with the massive aid of computational tools and in the
frame of largely industrialized manufacturing and erection techniques, so that the number
of possibilities the designer can explore dramatically increases. This frequently gives him a
sense of almightiness, but at the same time it creates a gap between the man and the build-
ing, a distance that he can not cover by himself. In the past, architects and engineers used
to rule their work through a synthetic vision of the project, considered at the same time
from the structural, aesthetic, functional, economic points of view (Levi et al. 2003, Chiorino
2007): but this attitude seems to be no longer of great importance, if replaced by the tremen-
dous analytical power of computational tools. Hence we assist to the diffusion of projects
that look completely arbitrary in their conception, astonishing in the design, focusing on the
immediate visual effect on public rather than on the development of some internal logic or
rationality. Is that a good or bad thing? Shall we follow the tradition of conservatism and
declare such innovations as a symptom of decadence or will we be fascinated by the shape
and the look, praising the spirit of the last archistar architect? The aim of this paper is
to investigate, through some partial but significant example, the how shells conception and
design is influenced by the ‘boundary conditions’ and what is their influence on the choice of
the architectural shape. In fact the design of shell structures is ruled by two main problems:
the prediction of the load bearing capacity and the erection procedure. Both these aspects are
largely influenced by the shape of the shell, so that the choice or the invention of the shape is

31

ICSA.indb 31 6/1/2010 9:10:51 PM

 a fundamental step in shells design. When the design of a shell involves a feed-back process
of shaping, and the final shape is obtained through variations and correction of an initial
tentative solution, we call this design step a ‘morphogenetic’ process.

REFERENCES

Borri, C., Marino, E., Orlando, M. & Salvatori, L. 2007. Formfinding and optimization of triangular
shell structures. In Sorić, Gruttmann, Wagner (eds.), Advanced Numerical Analysis of Shell-like
Structures, Proceedings of Special Workshop, September 26–28, 2007, Zagreb. Croatian Society of
Mechanics: Zagreb. 137–144.
Chiorino, M.A. 2003. Eladio Dieste: nascita e radici di un’arte di costruire in laterizio. In M. Daguerre
(ed.), Eladio Dieste, Electa: Milano. 52–89.
Chiorino, M.A. 2007. (a cura di), Jürg Conzett, Architettura nelle Opere di Ingegneria. Allemandi:
Torino.
Deregibus, C. & Sassone, M. 2008. Mathematical and structural properties of Geodesic curves: an appli-
cation on a free form gridshell. Journal of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Struc-
tures. 49(3): 157–166.
Greco, C. 2001. Giorgio Baroni, coperture sottili in cemento armato in forma di paraboloide iperbolico.
Area. 57(XII): 24–31.
Hines, E.M. & Billington, D.P. 2004. Anton Tedesko and the Introduction of Thin Shell Concrete Roofs
in the United States. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering. 130(11): 1639–1650.
Levi, F. Chiorino, M.A. & Bertolini Cestari, C. 2003. Eduardo Torroja: From the philosophy of struc-
tures to the art and science of building. International Seminar, Politecnico di Torino, November 2000,
Franco Angeli: Milano.
Levi, F. & Chiorino, M.A. 2004. Concrete in Italy. A review of a century of concrete progress in Italy,
Part I: Technique and architecture. Concrete International. 26(9): 55–61.
Mendez, T., Astolfi, A., Jansen, M. & Sassone, M. 2008. Architectural, Acoustic and Structural Form.
Journal of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures. 49(3): 181–186.
Pogacnik, M. 2009. Zwei Kuppeln in München: Armeemuseum und Anatomie (1903–1905) Die ersten
Betonschalen Europas. Bautechnik. 86(6): 342–356.
Pugnale, A. & Sassone, M. 2007. Morphogenesis And Structural Optimization Of Shell Structures With
The Aid Of A Genetic Algorithm. Journal of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Struc-
tures. 48(3): 161–166.
Sassone, M. & Pugnale, A. 2008. Optimal design of glass grid shells with quadrilateral elements by
means of a genetic algorithm. In John Abel, Robert Cooke (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Computation of Shell and Spatial Structures, Ithaca, NY, May 28–31, 2008.
Segal, E., Garlock, M.E.M. & Billington, D.P. 2008. A Comparative Analysis of the Bacardí Rum
Factor and the Lambert-St. Louis Airport Terminal. In Proceedings of the IASS-SLTE Symposium,
Acapulco, 2008.

32

ICSA.indb 32 6/1/2010 9:10:51 PM